New Hampshire Bar Association
About the Bar
For Members
For the Public
Legal Links
Publications
Newsroom
Online Store
Vendor Directory
NH Bar Foundation
Judicial Branch
NHMCLE

Providing innovative litigation support services in business valuation, financial analyses and forensic accounting to attorneys and clients alike throughout the New England.

Visit the NH Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) website for information about how our trained staff can help you find an attorney who is right for you.
New Hampshire Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service Law Related Education NHBA CLE NHBA Insurance Agency

Member Login
username and password

Bar Journal - December 1, 1999

New Hampshire Revises Its Domestic Violence Law

By:
 

I. INTRODUCTION

Tragically, domestic violence related deaths continue to represent a significant problem in New Hampshire. Twenty years ago the New Hampshire Legislature enacted NH RSA 173-B, a chapter providing domestic violence victims relief in the form of protective orders. For the past two and a half years, a major overhaul of the statute has been underway in the New Hampshire Legislature. On January 1, 2000 legislative changes to current law will become effective. This article tracks the journey of the House bills intended to revise the law while highlighting the proposed changes and controversies.

II. THE INCEPTION OF RSA 173-B

In 1979, House Bill (hereinafter, "HB") 809 was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Numerous organizations and interested parties testified or submitted affidavits in support of HB 809. Many stated that domestic violence permeated throughout New Hampshire households and that there was insufficient recourse for the victims.

J. Campbell Harvey, Esquire with NH Legal Assistance, drafted HB 809. She submitted written testimony that "an estimated 30,000 women throughout New Hampshire were beaten by their husbands in 1978."1 

The Senate Judiciary public hearing on HB 809 was held on May 21, 1979. Representative Jean Wallin testified that a committee on violence appointed by the Speaker of the House in 1978 "looked into the entire subject talking with battered women, policemen, legal people, mental health people as closely and widely as possible."2  On June 23, 1979 HB 809 was enacted, creating RSA 173-B.3 

Responding to the voluminous and often chilling testimony, RSA 173-B included assault, criminal threatening and sexual assault in the definition of abuse. A finding of abuse was not limited to family members; "household members" were also covered.

In an attempt to provide immediate and easy access to courts, RSA 173-B:3 provided that victims would not be charged a filing fee and could appear pro-se. Also, temporary relief could be ordered ex parte. Available temporary relief included ordering the defendant to refrain from abusing the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from entering the residence of the plaintiff and providing for custody of the minor children.

There was also a provision that a copy of the protective order be transmitted to the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction to enforce it. Finally, the defendant was given notice that violation of the order was considered a crime.

TWENTY YEARS LATER

Domestic violence continues to permeate throughout New Hampshire households. There were 8,320 domestic violence petitions filed in New Hampshire in 1998.4  From 1995 to 1997, the number of people contacting crisis centers increased by more than 3,000.5  Despite the tremendous efforts of government agencies, community groups, concerned citizens and the protections of RSA 173-B, domestic violence related deaths are not decreasing. During the first five months of 1999, there were 11 domestic violence related deaths out of a total of fourteen homicides. Since 1990 there have been 57 domestic violence related deaths where partners were responsible.6 

During the 1997 legislative session, the first major overhaul of the domestic violence laws was attempted by the introduction of HB 480. Representative William Knowles was the prime sponsor of HB 480.7  The bill was referred to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee (hereinafter, "C.J.P.S."). That summer, representatives from The NH Department of Justice, The NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and The Division for Children, Youth and Families all participated in subcommittee work sessions. HB 480 passed the House in its amended form on January 7, 1998.

The Bill was then referred to the Senate. There was considerable opposition to HB 480 during the Senate public hearing. The loudest voice of dissention was the organization, Gun Owners of NH. Their major concerns were the mandatory relinquishment of firearms, the proper storage and care of firearms and the procedures for the return of firearms. The Gun Owners of NH analogized the restraining order process to a criminal proceeding and felt that the defendants accused of abuse under HB 480 were not given the same rights as those accused in criminal proceedings.8  Ultimately, no further action was taken on the bill, and it died in the Senate. HB 480 was further amended and reintroduced in February 1999 as HB 722.9 

HB 722 was referred to the C.J.P.S. which amended the bill to "present improvements and fair treatment for all parties during times of great emotional stress."10  The C.J.P.S. held six subcommittee work sessions attended by people who supported and opposed the bill. The Gun Owners of NH which vehemently opposed HB 480 and HB 722 did not participate during subcommittee work sessions. HB 722 passed the C.J.P.S. by a 12-1 margin. On May 20, 1999, HB 722 passed the full House by a vote of 277-70.11 

During the floor debate, Representative Loren Jean, who was fervently opposed to HB 480, spoke in favor of HB 722. He stated that he "worked with the subcommittee on HB 722 and felt that the committee came out with a good bill."12  He stated his main opposition to HB 480 was that Petitions were being used as a "leg up" during divorce proceedings.13  He supported the new bill because "making false allegations is now subject to criminal penalty."14  One Representative shared an emotional story about how she had been the victim of abuse. She urged the members to place themselves in the shoes of the frightened victims. She also stated that if her abuser had a firearm, he would have used it against her.15 

Finally, Representative David Welch, Chairman of the C.J.P.S. stated that "despite being a strong believer in the Second Amendment, he supported the bill since he values his family over firearms."16 

III. HOW HB 722 CHANGES CURRENT LAW NEW DEFINITIONS

Newly defined terms include "contact," "firearm" and "deadly weapon." "Cross orders for relief" and "mutual orders for relief" are also defined. "Harassment" is now included under the definition of abuse.17  There is reference made to the jurisdiction of the family division over domestic violence cases.

The C.J.P.S. added an additional element to the definition of abuse. The new element is a requirement that the commission of any of the abusive acts defined by statute must also constitute a "credible threat to the plaintiff's safety."

Opponents of HB 480 and HB 722 argued that "abuse" was defined too broadly under these bills.18  The Gun Owners of NH opposed adding "harassment" under the definition of abuse. They argued that a person accused of making a "crank" call could lose their firearms.19  RSA 644:4 provides that a person is guilty of harassment if "such person makes a telephone call, with a purpose to annoy or alarm another."20  Responding to that concern the C.J.P.S. required that before any act such as harassment could be considered abuse, it must also constitute "a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety."

MUTUAL AND CROSS ORDERS FOR RELIEF

HB 722 includes a new provision that mutual orders for relief shall not be granted.21  The bill also determines when foreign mutual orders for relief may be granted full faith and credit in New Hampshire and when cross orders for relief may be granted.22  Sergeant Kelly McClare of the NH State Police testified that this is an improvement to current law and stated that "[o]rders against both the victim and the alleged perpetrator are very difficult to enforce."23 

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT

HB 722 (173-B:13, II) refines existing language in RSA 173-B:11-b, I and provides that any protective order issued by any other state shall be deemed valid if the issuing court had jurisdiction over the parties and matter, and the person against whom the order was made was given notice and an opportunity to be heard. HB 722 (173-B:13, III) provides that these protective orders shall be given full faith and credit throughout New Hampshire.

The Honorable Susan B. Carbon, Supervisory Judge, Grafton County Family Division, testified that with the changes proposed in the House bills, there is "compatibility with the federal Violence against Women Act, passed in 1994, and subsequent amendments to that act, particularly as they relate to interstate enforcement and recognition of foreign protective orders."24 

PETITIONS

During the public hearing on HB 722, Representative Loren Jean stated that he "spoke to many judges and lawyers and abuse of domestic violence petitions are rampant."25  The C.J.P.S. amended the current law to include a provision that any person filing a petition containing false allegations of abuse shall be subject to criminal penalties.26  In the same section, HB 722 now allows the plaintiff to amend the petition only if the defendant is provided an opportunity to respond to the amended petition prior to the hearing. Also, HB 722 (173-B:3, IV) now requires all domestic violence forms to include a warning that making a false statement will subject the petitioner to criminal penalties.

DEFENSES

Certain patterns of behavior are typical in cases of domestic violence. They include the victim forgiving the abuser and delaying in seeking protection. "Part of the cycle of domestic violence is a return to the perpetrator of abuse."27  Presently, courts are instructed by statute that "previous reconciliation prior to filing the current action shall not be grounds for denying or terminating a protective order."28 

HB 722 (173-B:5,III) adds that the court shall not deny the plaintiff protective orders based solely on a lapse of time between an act of domestic violence and the filing of a petition. The C. J. P. S. added language that the underlying act of domestic violence must "present a credible threat to the plaintiff's current safety."

ENFORCING PROTECTIVE ORDERS

Even if a victim reports that they do not want enforcement of the order, HB 722 (173-B:5,VIII(d)) dictates that "peace officers are to enforce orders for protection as written and no action by a party relieves them of the duty to enforce the order."

Indeed, a defendant who is restrained from contacting the plaintiff or entering the premises of the plaintiff will continue to be prohibited even if invited by the plaintiff, unless the court has modified the restraining order.29  Clearly relieving the enforcement officers of making tough calls in the field, HB 722 (173-B:5,VIII,(b)) states that if either party wishes the defendant to be excused from any provisions of an order of protection they must petition the court.

Currently, RSA 173-B:9 provides that whenever any peace officer has reason to believe that a person has been subject to abuse, as defined in RSA 173-B:1, I, that officer shall use all means within reason to prevent further abuse. The "reason to believe" standard has been replaced with a "probable cause" standard.30  Probable cause is a standard more familiar to law enforcement.31 

HB 722 also enumerates what the officer shall do to prevent further abuse. This includes confiscating deadly weapons and firearms/ammunition in the defendant's control, providing transportation to the victim to meet with a family member or friend, assisting the victim in removing items from his/her residence and giving written notice of rights of victims of domestic violence.32 

MAKING PROTECTIVE ORDERS AVAILABLE TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS STATEWIDE

Current law provides that a copy of each protective order may be transmitted to the Department of Safety by computer. HB 722 (173-B:5, IX,(a)) mandates transmission of each protective order by facsimile or computer. The C.J.P.S. made technical corrections to reflect that the Administrative Office of the Courts is now responsible for entering the information regarding protective orders into the state's database. The C.J.P.S. added language to HB 722(173-B:5, IX,(b) that the Department of Safety is responsible for making information regarding emergency protective orders issued telephonically available to police and sheriff departments statewide.

ENHANCED PENALTY

Violating a protective order is a Class A misdemeanor. HB 722 contains a new provision (173-B:9, IV) which enhances the penalty for a person who has been convicted of violating a protective order and is convicted of an abuse- related crime within six years thereafter. For example, if the subsequent offense would constitute a Class B felony, the perpetrator may be charged with a Class A felony.

RELIEF

The most extensive changes occur in RSA 173-B:6, Temporary Relief Upon A Showing Of An Immediate And Present Danger of Abuse, and RSA 173-B:4, Relief Upon A Showing Of Abuse Of The Plaintiff By A Preponderance Of The Evidence.

1. Relinquishment of firearms, gun owner's rights versus public safety

One of the most controversial portions of HB 480 concerned the relinquishment of firearms. Those who testified in support of HB 480 spoke of the need to protect victims of domestic violence. Attorney General Philip McLaughlin testified that "according to New Hampshire Department of Justice statistics, 40% of the murders each year involve domestic violence."33  During the HB 722 public hearing, he testified that "a disproportionate number of homicides in New Hampshire come from domestic violence."34 

Attorney General McLaughlin further testified that there are approximately 22 murders in New Hampshire annually, which include "between 4-6 murder suicides, mostly in domestic relations situations, typically where a spouse murders another spouse, and then kills him or herself."35 

The majority of those who testified in opposition to HB 722 and HB 480 were concerned that the bills permitted an infringement upon a citizen's right to keep and bear arms pursuant to Part I, Article 2-a. of the New Hampshire Constitution. Some testified that HB 480 was an "anti-gun bill."36  Hundreds of people signed their names in opposition to HB 480 at the Senate Judiciary public hearing. Others wrote letters and some testified. One person testified that "domestic violence does not trump the constitution."37 

Although, RSA 173-B actions are not criminal cases, some who testified analogized the two proceedings and expressed concern that protections such as a jury and a right to counsel afforded to criminal defendants were not afforded to defendants accused of abuse under HB 480.38 

Current law already permits the court to "enter temporary protective orders with or without actual notice to the defendant, upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse." HB 722 kept this provision intact.

There are new provisions regarding the relinquishment of firearms and ammunition. HB 480 that was killed in the Senate in 1998 required relinquishment of firearms on an ex parte basis. Effective January 1, 2000, ex parte relinquishment of firearms/ ammunition is discretionary and it is mandatory upon the court to direct the defendant to relinquish firearms and ammunition when there has been a showing of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.39 

HB 722 allows for a hearing no less than three business days and no more than five business days after the request is made.

In 1994, Congress passed changes to the Gun Control Act which "makes it a federal crime for a person who is subject to a protective order to possess any firearm or ammunition."40  The court must find that the person subject to the protective order "represents a credible threat to the physical safety of that person's intimate partner or child."41 

Attorney General McLaughlin testified that there should not be an intrusion into the constitutional guarantees of persons to keep and bear arms except when dealing with the conduct of a person who is a threat.42  "If you could make someone take a time-out, without the weapon, lives could be saved."43  Attorney General McLaughlin testified the provision in 173-B:5 that "a finding of abuse shall mean the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff, contains the compromise which justifies the intrusion, and continued intrusion into what otherwise is a constitutionally protected area."44 

The Honorable Susan B. Carbon explained that "by utilizing the credible threat language we are following the federal statute, so that we will be permitted to have our orders enforced in any other jurisdiction where the victim may flee for her safety, and similarly, a victim from another state who comes to New Hampshire will be able to have his or her protective order enforced in our state, consistent with the federally mandated full faith and credit provisions that Congress has enacted."45 

Presently, RSA 173-B:6, VII (temporary relief) allows the court to direct the defendant to relinquish all deadly weapons. HB 722 allows the court to order relinquishment of ammunition as well.

HB 722 (173-B:4 (I)(a)(9)) also states that any deadly weapons specified in the protective order that are being held by another person on behalf of the defendant may also be relinquished. All such items are to be relinquished for the duration of the protective order rather than temporarily.

If there has been a showing of abuse, the court must prohibit the defendant from purchasing, receiving, or possessing any deadly weapons and any and all firearms and ammunition for the duration of the order. When dealing with temporary relief, the court is not mandated to issue such an order.

Just as in current law under RSA 173-B:6 (temporary relief) in HB 722 (173-B:4,(II)), the court may issue a search warrant authorizing the peace officer to seize any deadly weapons if there is probable cause to believe such deadly weapons are kept on the premises or curtilage of the defendant and the court has reason to believe such weapons have not been relinquished by the defendant. HB 722 (173-B:4,(II)) requires that the deadly weapons be specified in the protective order. HB 722 (173-B:4,(II)) adds that firearms and ammunition may be seized in addition to deadly weapons.

2. The storage and possible return of firearms

During the Senate public hearing on HB 480, much attention was spent on the provision that dealt with the return of firearms. Those opposed to HB 480 stated that the process for the return of firearms/ammunition and deadly weapons would be expensive for the defendant because they would have to incur legal fees and pay storage costs.46 

They claimed charging storage costs was unfair especially if the defendant were eventually exonerated.47  There was a concern that there would be no liability on the part of officers if the firearms were destroyed absent gross negligence.48  These concerns were also voiced during the public hearing on HB 722.49 

Others stated that the provision regarding the procedure for the return of firearms would be helpful to judges and the law enforcement community. A representative of the NH State Police felt that the provision was necessary since it filled a gap in current law."50 

The procedures regarding the return of firearms are better enumerated in HB 722 than in HB 480. A C.J.P.S. amendment to HB 722 now gives the defendant the opportunity to request the return of firearms within 15 days prior to the expiration of the protective order. Upon receipt of a motion, the court must schedule a hearing and must also provide written notice to the law enforcement agency which has control of the firearms and to the plaintiff, who shall have a right to appear and be heard. Pursuant to a C.J.P.S. amendment to HB 722, the court must schedule the hearing no later than fifteen days after the expiration of the order.

The scope of the hearing is limited to two issues: whether the defendant is subject to any state or federal law, or court order that precludes the defendant from owning or possessing a firearm; and if the plaintiff requests an extension of the protective order, whether the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant continues to represent a credible threat to the safety of the plaintiff.

If the defendant prevails at the hearing, the court shall issue a written order directing the law enforcement agency to return the requested firearms, ammunition or deadly weapon to the defendant. Law enforcement agencies shall not release these items without a court order.

Pursuant to HB 722, the law enforcement agency may charge the defendant a reasonable fee for the storage of any firearms and ammunition and specified deadly weapons taken pursuant to a protective order. The C.J.P.S. added new language which did not appear in HB 480 which provides that the defendant may make alternative arrangements with a federally licensed dealer for the storage of firearms, at the defendant's own expense, upon approval of the court.

ENTERING PREMISES AND CURTILAGE WHERE PLAINTIFF RESIDES

Presently, on a temporary basis, the court may restrain the defendant from entering the residence where the plaintiff resides.51  HB 722 permits the court to restrain the defendant from entering the "premises and curtilage where the plaintiff resides."52  Just as in current law, HB 722 makes an exception to this when the defendant is accompanied by a peace officer. However, HB 722 adds language that there must be reasonable notice to the plaintiff and the entry must be for the sole purpose of retrieving toiletries, medication, clothing, business equipment, and any other items as determined by the court instead of just "personal property" as provided for in current law.

HB 722 has now added that even if a restraining order is made permanent the court can permit the defendant to enter the premises if accompanied by a police officer.

BATTERER'S TREATMENT PROGRAM

Current law allows the court to direct the abuser to engage in a batterer's treatment program.53  HB 722 adds language that court-ordered and court-referred mediation of cases involving domestic violence shall be prohibited.54 

VISITATION RIGHTS

HB 722 adds a new provision that allows the court to establish visitation rights of the minor children on an ex parte basis.55  When there has been a finding of abuse, current law already has such a provision. HB 722 adds conditions that the court may impose including no visitation or supervised visitation.56 

HB 722 provides that the court shall consider several factors when determining whether visitation shall be granted. The factors include the degree to which visitation exposes the plaintiff or the children to physical or psychological harm, whether the risk of harm can be removed with supervised visitation and whether visitation can be ordered without requiring the plaintiff and defendant to have contact regarding the exchange of children.

RESTRAINING DEFENDANT FROM DISCONNECTING UTILITIES

Other new temporary relief under HB 722 permits the court to restrain the defendant from disconnecting any and all utilities and services to the parties' household or discontinuing existing business or service contracts such as mortgage agreements.57 

CONCLUSION

Many citizens and groups have contributed to the legislative process concerning the revision of the domestic violence laws. Clearly the legislature devoted a great deal of time in its attempt to reconcile the conflict between the need to protect victims of domestic violence and the need to treat the accused with fairness. Along with the hundreds of concerned citizens who have participated in shaping and reshaping NH domestic violence statutes, the author hopes that when these issues are revisited in another twenty years, the menace of domestic violence will finally be under control.

ENDNOTES

1.

An act relative to the protection of persons from domestic violence, 1979: Hearing on HB 809 Before N.H. House Judiciary Comm. (April 18, 1979) (statement submitted by J. Campbell Harvey, Esquire).

2.

An act relative to the protection of persons from domestic violence, 1979: Hearing on HB 809 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (May 21, 1979) (statement submitted Rep. Jean Wallin).

3.

An act relative to the protection of persons from Domestic Violence, ch. 377 (1979).

4.

NH Administrative Office of the Courts.

5.

NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

6.

Office of NH Att'y Gen.

7.

1997 N.H. H. B. 480.

8.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm.(March 16, 1999)(testimony submitted by The Gun Owners Of NH.)

9.

Rep. William Knowles was also the prime sponsor of HB 722.

10.

156 NH House Rec. 1421 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Christie).

11.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999).

12.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Jean).

13.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Jean).

14.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Jean).

15.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Flora).

16.

156 NH House Rec. 1435 (daily ed. May 20,1999)(statement of Rep. Welch).

17.

1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, (IV), "Contact" means any action to communicate with another either directly or indirectly, including but not limited to, using any form of electronic communication, leaving items, or causing another to communicate in such fashion. 1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, (XI), "Firearm" means any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by force of gunpowder. 1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, (VII), "Deadly Weapon" means "deadly weapon" as defined in RSA 625:11,V. 1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, (VI), "Cross orders for relief" mean separate orders granted to parties in a domestic violence situation where each of the parties has filed a petition pursuant to this chapter on allegations arising from the same incident or incidents of domestic violence. 1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, (XVI), "Mutual order for relief" means an order restraining both parties from abusing the other originating from a petition filed by one of the parties and arising from the same incident or incidents of domestic violence. 1999 N.H. H.B. 722 § 173-B:1, I(g). includes "Harassment" under the definition of abuse.

18.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by The Gun Owners of NH).

19.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by The Gun Owners of NH).

20.

N.H. REV.STAT. ANN.§ 644:4 (1996).

21.

1999 N.H. H.B. 722, §173-B:5,V(a).

22.

1999 N.H. H.B. 722, §173-B:13,VII.

23.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (statement submitted by Sergeant Kelly McClare).

24.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (statement submitted by The Honorable Susan B. Carbon).

25.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by Rep. Jean).

26.

1999 N.H. H.B.722, 173-B:3, I.

27.

An act generally amending certain provisions relating to domestic violence, 1994. Hearing on SB 673-FN Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (February 2, 1994) (testimony submitted by Ellen Musinsky, Esq. and Chairman of NH Committee on Domestic Violence).

28.

N.H. REV.STAT. ANN. §173-B:4, I-a (1998).

29.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B:5, VIII,(c).

30.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722,173-B:10(I).

31.

N.H. REV.STAT. ANN. §594:10,I(b)(1986 & Supp. 1998).

32.

1999 N.H. H.B. 722, 173-B:10 (I)(a-d).

33.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

34.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

35.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

36.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Mr. Al Rubega).

37.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Mr. Michael Hammond).

38.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by The Gun Owners of NH).

39.

1999 HB 722 (173-B:5(I)).

40.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(9) (Supp. 1999).

41.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(9) (Supp. 1999).

42.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

43.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

44.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by NH Attorney General McLaughlin).

45.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) ) and Hearing on HB 722 Before House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by The Honorable Susan B. Carbon).

46.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Mr. Michael Hammond).

47.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Mr. Michael Hammond).

48.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Mr. Michael Hammond).

49.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1999: Hearing on HB 722 Before N.H. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Comm. (March 16, 1999) (testimony submitted by The Gun Owners of NH).

50.

An act revising the law relative to protection of persons from domestic violence, 1997: Hearing on HB 480 Before N.H. Senate Judiciary Comm. (April 15, 1998) (testimony submitted by Sergeant Kelly McClare).

51.

N.H. REV.STAT. ANN. §173-B: B:6, II (1994).

52.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B: 4, (I)(a)(2).

53.

N.H. REV.STAT. ANN. § 173:B-4 (I)(b)(5) (1998).

54.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B: 5 (I)(b)(8).

55.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B:4 (I)(a)(5).

56.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B:5 (I) (b)(6).

57.

1999 N.H.H.B. 722, 173-B:4(I)(b)(2).

The Author

Attorney Marie-Hélène Bailinson works at the New Hampshire House Of Representatives, Concord, New Hampshire.

 

Inclement Weather Notice

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer